Peacemills Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

People were treated with kindness and compassion. However, some of our observations meant people received an inconsistent approach to preserving their dignity. People were encouraged to do as much as they could for themselves to maintain their independence. People were supported by staff who knew them well and treated them as an individual. People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring and provided support in line with their wishes. Staff were supported which enabled them to carry out their roles positively.

This service scored 80 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received feedback from 2 professionals who work with the service. They did not raise any concerns about people’s dignity or privacy being compromised. Professionals told us people looked well and appeared happy in both staff and the management team’s presence.

People told us they were treated with kindness and dignity. People and their families told us staff respected their right to privacy and supported them in a kind, caring manner. People told us, “The staff are fantastic and give everyone lots of attention,” another person said, “The carers are second to none and we can tell them anything.” Relatives we spoke with agreed and told us care staff treated their loved ones with respect and dignity. A relative said, “They’re kindness themselves - so helpful and can’t do enough for my [relative].”

We observed most staff treated people with kindness, compassion, and dignity. We did however observe some staff did not always maintain people’s dignity and privacy. For example, we found a person living with a cognitive impairment to be in a state of undress in the lounge, we went to find staff to support them. Whilst staff attended immediately, they did not protect the person’s privacy before escorting them out of the lounge, instead walking them through the lounge where several people were sat. On another occasion we observed a person attempting to eat with their hands, they were unable to do this and as result spilt food down themselves, many staff walked past and did not provide timely support to the person. Both of these observations compromised people’s privacy and dignity. We did observe several positive interactions between staff and people. We found staff spoke to people in a kind manner in their preferred name. We observed staff comforting a person who became upset, staff offered to escort them to their bedroom to provide support.

Staff told us they treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity. All staff we spoke with told us they treated people with kindness and dignity. All staff we spoke with described the home as a nice place to work and told us supporting people was the favourite part of their role. Staff said, “I really enjoy my job, I enjoy seeing smiles on people’s face when they see you in the morning.” Staff gave us examples of promoting people’s independence and supported people to live their life in their chosen way. For example, one staff member told us, “Respect and dignity is given to all people and staff promote their independence.” Another staff member said, “People’s privacy, dignity and independence are supported. Equal respect is maintained.”

People’s individuality was respected. We observed staff respecting people’s wishes around their bedrooms and observed staff knocking. Where bedroom doors were open staff knocked and waited for a reply before entering and greeting people. We observed staff to talk with people using their preferred name, we also observed staff supporting people who were distressed using a personalised approach.

Processes in place meant individual preferences and needs were not always documented. For example, one person’s care plan had a ‘map of life’ in place but this was entirely blank. Whilst the manager and registered manager were aware care plans needed updating to reflect people’s current needs these had not always been done in a timely manner. The registered manager explained this was something they were working on and recognised the urgency of this. There was an increased risk of people’s individual wishes not being respected as there were many people living at the service who could not communicate their wishes and there were agency staff in use who might not know people as well as employed staff.

People told us they were happy living at Peacemills. People told us staff knew them well and respected their choices. People said, “Staff know I like my privacy, so everyone knocks before peering round if I don’t call out,” another person said, “Staff close my curtains when I’m dressing, and they know I prefer my door left open, so they don’t need to knock first. They know me.”

Staff and the management team knew people well and used a personalised approach. The registered manager and manager had worked at the home for several years and knew people well, they spoke with ease about people’s needs, likes and dislikes and how they supported them. Staff were confident in their approach and told us, “People are treated well and protected. We try and give the best person-centred care.”

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

Staff and the management team understood the importance of responding to people’s immediate needs. The management team monitored call bells and implemented a system to ensure call bells were answered in a timely manner. For example, if a call bell went unanswered for 8 minutes the sound of the system changed to alert staff it had been alarming for a prolonged period of time. A different alarm sounded in the event of an emergency. Staff told us they received training as part of their induction programme to understand the difference between the two sounds. Documents we reviewed supported this statement.

People told us staff responded to their calls for support in a timely manner. Whilst people did explain the lack of call bells sometimes made it difficult to call for assistance, they felt staff responded immediately and told us they never waited long for support. A person we spoke with said, “If I press the button, it’s 5 minutes mostly.”

During our visit to Peacemills we observed staff to attend to people quickly when alerted. We did not hear any prolonged call bells alarming and those which did sound were answered promptly. We observed where people asked for help and support staff supported them quickly. Staff supported people with a kind and cheery nature which appeared to put people at ease.

Staff told us they felt well supported by the management team at Peacemills. The manager who was in the process of becoming registered told us they received extensive support from the existing registered manager and operations manager. The registered manager who had moved to operational post for the provider told us the provider was supportive and they felt able to raise concerns with them. Staff told us the whole management team were visible in the service and they felt supported in their roles.

Processes in place meant staff were supported to carry out their duties effectively. Team meetings and supervisions were completed which gave staff the opportunity to voice any concerns or ideas they may have. Following a recent concern, the management team had reshared the whistleblowing policy with all staff. Further information was displayed in the entrance of Peacemills to inform staff of both internal and external whistleblowing processes.